Slashdot Mirror
Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License
mrtwice99 writes "Dropbox recently updated their TOS, Privacy Policy, and Security Overview. Included in the TOS is the following statement: 'By submitting your stuff to the Services, you grant us (and those we work with to provide the Services) worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable rights to use, copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service.' I think Dropbox is a great service, but what is the significance of granting them such broad usage rights?"
Elsewhere in the same Terms of Service, which are a few notches above the norm in both brevity and readability, Dropbox says both "Dropbox respects others’ intellectual property and asks that you do too," and "You retain ownership to your stuff."
It's the usual clause companies have to put now a day so that some asshat won't sue them for millions of dollars even if the service providers offered the services like advertised. Dropbox probably needs this clause to show your content in a public link that you link to others. Youtube and any other user submitted service has similar clauses. The law probably needs fixing, but that isn't the companies fault - blame the asshats abusing it.
Google, deviantArt, Facebook, et al, they all have very similar or same wording in their TOS's. Point is, if they transfer data from your account to someone else's account, it is considered distribution, performance if they show video to others, etc, etc. So they need you to license your stuff to them so they're permitted to carry out their services. The fact that it, on paper, gives them right to do many other things is worrying, but not at all unusual. Good thing about Dropbox version is that it at least has the "to the extent we think we think it necessary for the Service." That is an improvement.
Every harsh word you utter has the right address. It only sounds harsh because the one on the envelope is the wrong one.
If you read the whole agreement, it isn't as scary as the poster has implied.
Your Stuff & Your Privacy
By using our Services you may give us access to your information, files, and folders (together, “your stuff”). You retain ownership to your stuff. You are also solely responsible for your conduct, the content of your files and folders, and your communications with others while using the Services.
We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff (for example, hosting, making public, or sharing your files). By submitting your stuff to the Services, you grant us (and those we work with to provide the Services) worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable rights to use, copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service. You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission.
How we use your stuff is also governed by the Dropbox Privacy Policy, which you acknowledge. You acknowledge that Dropbox has no obligation to monitor any information on the Services, even though we may do so. We are not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, appropriateness, or legality of files, user posts, or any other information you may be able to access using the Services. We may disclose information about your account or your stuff to law enforcement officials as outlined in our Privacy Policy.
At the end of the day, dropbox is really just a fancy front end bolted on to Amazon's s3 service. So basically if Amazon demanded no copyrighted material be stored on the service, dropbox must change it's TOS to match..... Ultimately your dropbox data is essentially in the hands of not just one, but 2 different companies.
Monstar L
No, they are being granted a license to use what people put there. There is a difference.
Maybe it's time for law enforcement to get involved with these clowns and hit them with fraud for pretending to have a secure service.
Yes someone better call the Internet Police and ... oh wait. This comment doesn't even make sense. Call which law enforcement exactly? And for what charge? "I don't like their Terms of Service" isn't, as far as I'm aware, something any country's laws have a charge for. You don't like the terms, you don't use the service.
"We reserve the rights to be douchebags if we want, but we promise we won't be."
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Wuala offers both encryption and cheap storage via data deduplication. They simply AES encrypt your stuff using it's own SHA as the key. And they use the encrypted file's SHA for the identifier. In this way, any two people should encrypt the same file to the same encrypted file, but nobody who's never seen the original file could read it, including Wuala.
Soon, we'll see the MafiAA perusing people's DropBox accounts to delete pirated content and/or sue its possessors. Wuala doesn't offer that much more technical protection here since they'll simply subpoena the list of people possessing a particular file, but they cannot actually just browse your account because each directory gets encrypted too and directories are usually unique. Also, Wuala is far more likely to fight a MafiAA subpoena because they're (a) based in Switzerland, (b) started as a P2P network, and (c) started by academics.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Seriously, you are going to compare Dropbox to "a basic website with webspace", and this gets modded Insightful? I have lots of websites, there is a reason I use Dropbox, its a great product. I'm just concerned the terms are overly broad.